The short version
- An independent adjudication panel ruled that sexual harassment claims against Liberal Democrat peer Chris Rennard cannot be reinvestigated due to a lack of new evidence.
- Party leader Ed Davey expressed disappointment with the outcome, citing previous failures in the complaints process and his belief that Rennard should not remain a party member.
- Rennard maintains the allegations were thoroughly dismissed years ago and criticized the party for pursuing a legally flawed review that he argues caused unnecessary damage.
The Liberal Democrats have concluded their internal review of sexual harassment allegations against peer Chris Rennard, with an independent panel determining that no further investigation will take place. The decision marks the end of a renewed scrutiny process that began earlier this year after party leadership received advice suggesting a previous inquiry into the matter was procedurally flawed. Despite the closure of the case, the outcome has generated significant tension within the party, highlighting ongoing challenges in handling historical misconduct claims.
Leader Ed Davey publicly stated he was disappointed and upset by the panel’s conclusion. Davey had previously suspended Rennard from the party following the decision to reopen the investigation. He emphasized that while he respects the independence of the adjudicators, the result represents a failure for the women who originally made the complaints. According to Davey, these individuals were let down by an inadequate investigation thirteen years ago and are now being let down again because the current process determined it could not proceed without fresh evidence.
The independent panel, composed of three party members acting as adjudicators, relied on legal advice to reach its determination. They concluded that in the absence of new evidence, the case against Rennard could not be reopened. This decision effectively ends the party’s attempt to reassess conduct that was previously investigated and dismissed. The panel’s ruling underscores the legal and procedural constraints facing political parties when attempting to revisit settled historical grievances without additional substantiating material.
Chris Rennard, a former chief executive of the Liberal Democrats who was awarded a life peerage in 1999, welcomed the decision. He argued that the complaint should be published in full to demonstrate that the reopened investigation was unjustified. Rennard stated that all allegations against him were thoroughly and professionally investigated by both police and independent inquiries over an eighteen-month period between 2013 and 2014. He maintained that these investigations concluded the claims could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The original review, conducted in 2013 by senior lawyer Alistair Webster KC, found less than a fifty percent chance of proving the case against Rennard. However, Webster’s report did note that there was broadly credible evidence of behavior that violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants. The four women involved in the allegations are former deputy party chair Alison Goldsworthy, academic Alison Smith, former Nick Clegg adviser Bridget Harris, and former councillor Susan Gaszczak. Their complaints were formally accepted by the party at the time as dismissed, with an appeals panel later rejecting their challenge on the grounds that there was no basis for overturning the initial findings.
Rennard criticized the Liberal Democrats for the duration and manner of the recent review process. He claimed it took nine months to dismiss the renewed complaint, a timeline he described as unfairly damaging to himself, his wife, and the party. Rennard noted that both he and his spouse have been members of the Liberal Democrats for over fifty years and support many charitable causes. He argued that the legal advice relied upon by the party was never properly disclosed to him and suggested that the party spent considerable resources on lawyers to obtain further counsel from a King’s Counsel, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Davey reiterated his personal stance that Rennard should not be a member of the party or the House of Lords. However, he acknowledged that he lacks the formal power to remove a peer from membership. Davey expressed confidence that the current complaints system would handle similar allegations in a more reliable and effective manner today. He pointed to systemic changes implemented since the original 2013 investigation as evidence of improved procedures, even as he lamented the frustration felt by those who sought accountability through the recent review.
Rennard’s solicitor, Richard Cannon, characterized the renewed complaint as legally flawed from its inception and argued it should never have been brought forward. The party constitution describes decisions by such panels as final and binding on all parties involved. Rennard stated that the party’s own lawyers had previously confirmed the finality of the 2013 decision in law. As the matter closes, the incident serves as a case study in the difficulties political organizations face when balancing historical accountability with legal finality and procedural fairness.
The resolution of this case leaves unresolved questions about how parties address past misconduct when new evidence is unavailable. While Davey views the outcome as a double failure for the complainants, Rennard sees it as vindication against what he describes as an unjustified reopening of settled matters. The Liberal Democrats now face the task of managing internal dissent and public perception regarding their handling of historical harassment claims, with no further investigative avenues available under current party rules.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Panel rules out further inquiry into sexual harassment claims against Lib Dem peer Chris Rennard
